Controversy.

What we believe-2

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

Item 1 was talking about how Christianity does not teach that sin is the intended result of free will, or that it is necessary to sin first before choosing good.

“Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?” Romans 6:1-2

Most have heard the Christmas story. Jesus was born of a virgin, in a stable, and angels announced it.

It sounds like any other religion with its prophets and visions.

The reason I find The Gospels different is because they are so unpretentious. I’ve read some other gospels, and religious texts, and they are always told in a sort of sanctimonious tone. Making everything sound very holy and above our understanding.

That may seem fitting, certainly the church has done the same thing. But the Gospels themselves don’t do it. When they tell the story they state in it simple language, very matter of factly. Only getting excited when talking about glorifying God.

The whole Bible is full of stories like that. Miraculous stuff happens, and is told like it was the time of day.

Some call the Bible boring because of this. But I want to point out that it’s also very humble.

Which is astounding, since it is said to come directly from God himself.

That doesn’t prove it was true. I know that. But it’s different.

The humility of the Bible is important when considering how vital it is, if it is true.

But I digress.

According to the Bible, Jesus was God, and Jesus was man. There’s debate over what that means. But the best explanation I can give is that God, who made man in the first place. obviously could make his son into a man. HE doesn’t need help. The reason He used Mary was so that Jesus could be born into temptation, but not into sin itself. Which is handed down from the father, according to the word. Though also from the mother.

But God is sinless, so Jesus was able to choose that because He was God’s son.

It sounds crazy, but every religion sounds crazy if you look at it though what is possible to man. (That includes secular ones by the way.) If what you believe doesn’t sound nuts to someone, you don’t really have faith.

And there are those skeptics who will pick apart anything that’s a little outside their comfort zone. I trust that’s not any of you, but I’m sure you’ve met them.

So I don’t think we can discount the biblical story just because it sounds crazy. Even for human beings crazy does not equal impossible. (Did you know people have jumped down Niagara falls with no protection at all, and made it. Maybe it was just one person, but still.)

I think we should ask what makes the story of Jesus different from other faith figures.

I think there are others who were known as  humble. But none quite so shockingly unique. I’ve been reading a book called “Beautiful Outlaw” about how Jesus is a collection of contradictions.

And I’m not one who is swayed bye very book I read about God, I discount plenty if it seems wonky. But this book has a very strong biblical foundation that anyone can appreciate.

I know that fact that Jesus seems to contradict himself can make it hard to buy.

However, when Jesus seems to do something, there is always a reason for it.

I want to address something else I heard on the internet now, the idea that we should not use the bible to shape our views of parenting, or of anything I imagine, because it is old and written from a mindset of thousands of years ago.

I’ll get more into that later, but for now I want to address the Christian belief that the Bible is the very Word of God. I don’t know if the Jews beleive that, or if they believe it about every book in the Old Testament. But Christians believe it about the whole thing.

And if that is so, then there’s no way God’s ideas can be outdated. Think about it.

But also, if that is true, what do we do with the fact that Christians do not follow Old testaments Law? IF it was the word of God, aren’t we hypocrites.

And Jesus said He did not come to remove he law but to establish it.

Jesus also allowed his disciples to break the law by plucking grain on the Sabbath so that they could eat. He also healed on the Sabbath. (Which is not forbidden by the way, but at the time it was condemned by the pharisees.) Sow hat gives? And why do Christian now balk at the passages that strongly condemn sinners to death or other horrendous punishments.

Well, the interesting thing is that until Jesus came, there weren’t a whole lot of peaceful gods in any religion. I’m not sure there were any. All the old mythology I know about had blood thirsty, or temperamental gods. And God has been accused of being the same. Though the prophets tell us that He takes no delight int he death of the wicked.

Jesus changed the fad.

The reason Christians believe that we can have more mercy now, and that we don’t have to eat certain foods and not eat others, and do all these rituals to purify ourselves is because Jesus did it all for us.

Christianity differ from Judaism int hat it start the work from the inside out, instead of the outside in. If you change inside, then outside you will soon follow. But outside first never changed anyone.

Jesus fulfilled the law not in that he enforced every single command, but that he brought us the real why behind them. He showed us that The sacrifices and eating and not eating were all things meant to tide us over, to teach us what holiness is through outward examples, but that it was never meant to actually take us there on it’s own.

God says this in Isiah when he mentions how the people honor him with their lips, and go through the motions of his commands “but their hearts are far from me.”

It is not hypocrisy for Christians to no longer practice some parts of the law, but actually part of what the whole faith is about. Being righteous inside first, not outside.

I can get a little more into that later that’s all for now–Natasha.

What we believe-1

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

I’m starting right in with a new mini series of posts. This time around, my topic is the semantics of Christianity.

The reason I wanted to do this is not purely to convert anyone, it’s actually because I keep seeing people on the internet describe what Christianity, only they don’t describe it. They think I believe something totally different.

This is getting on my nerves, so in order to feel better,  I’m gong to explain what I believe and why.

(A quick warning, Christians don’t agree on everything, I’ll try to stick to the basics, but there’s always going to be some debate between sects. Most of it is over minor stuff so I hope no one will start an argument in the comment section over it. Thanks.)

Okay, topic number one: What is Christianity?

Better yet, why does it claim to be different from every other religion?

The skeptic will always doubt that there really is any difference, and might not care what the difference is because it still involves God.

But as far as theists are concerned the difference is important.

All religions, (even the godless ones) try to answer life’s fundamental questions about our identity, purpose, and who is in charge over everything. Christianity is no different here. But Christianity goes a step further. It not only answers all this, but it answers the question of why these things are the way they are.

We are made in God’s image. The reason is, God wanted to make independent beings who could love Him of their own free will. (That’s the semantics part.) Because, love is a choice.

Now the mistaken internet person I was watching yesterday made an error after this point. I won’t tell you who it was, though I doubt any of you watch her. (It would be uncanny if you all knew the same people as me.)

What she said was that we can’t attain heaven, until we’ve been given free will. Being born into it makes it boring. And that Christianity shows this by having man first choose to leave paradise, and then to regain it by sacrificing his life, thereby earning it.

I could see how, if you view Christianity as just another myth, you might think that Adam and Christ are both meant to represent mankind. Therefore making the whole thing a metaphor for how we have to earn our stripes, as it were.

But the real thing we believe is that we earned the stripes, and Christ took the beating for us.

It is true that Adam and Christ both represent Man. As do all of use individually at some point in our lives. We all constantly reenact Adam’s choice to sin, and hopefully we reenact Christ’s choice to put ourselves aside, sometimes.

But the Bible never claims that this is a metaphor. It’s quite literal. Christ was able to pay the price for Adam’s sin, and all Adam’s children (us and also himself) because he never sinned. Because he was also God in the flesh. (More on that later.)

The idea that man needed free will in order to sin so that heaven could be a choice is flat out ludicrous.

It seems to make sense in this world, where the idea of never sinning seems impossible.

But that’s because we’v lived here all our lives and never seen an example of anyone who doesn’t sin, except for a young baby.

But that’s what Adam was, compared to us. A baby in terms of sin. As indeed, Christian are admonished to be by the Bible. (1 Corinthians 14:20)

It doesn’t mean however, that sin will make you grow up. We all know immature people who do things that are wrong and won’t listen to reason, they aren’t more grown up than us. They are less.

The reason sin is associated with adulthood is because the older we get, the more of it we know about. Which is a tragedy, not an asset. I wish there was no sin to know about, but because there is, I have no choice but to deal with that fact.

But how is it good for me? The idea that sin is good for man, in that in enables him to choose heaven, is against everything the Bible teaches.

Whether you disagree or not is irrelevant to the topic, since I am merely laying out what the Bible actually says. (Not saying as of now that you have to accept it.)

This is just what’s actually in there. Sin brought death (see Romans.) Man brought sin into the world. Sin leads to death, which leads to hell, unless it is redeemed through Christ.

Hell is not good. Also, God cannot live with what is not good. So, if sin was the key to getting into heaven, how would that work?

I think the real idea this YouTuber had was that sin enables you to truly become good. But that’s also not true.

Goodness is linked to purity. The Bible says God desires a pure heart. Pure means not mixed. A heart that’s mixed with sin is not pure.

And pure goodness is preferable to partial goodness.

Romans also says no one in righteous, no not one.

So, it doesn’t matter if we choose good in the end. We aren’t righteous because we choose to do good, since we’ve all chosen evil before.

Jesus himself taught that if you break one of the commandments, you break all of them.

What this means is, only one sin is enough. Sins aren’t cancelled out by good deeds. Not in Christianity anyway. It is because to sin is to cast yourself infinitely away from God.

The idea is to be without any sin, ever, that was how man was created.

If we were all good, we wouldn’t be bored. It’s only because we sin that it becomes pleasurable to us. I think we all know this deep down, if we look back to when we were kids and still felt guilty over thing we take for granted now.

That’s all for this post, till next time–Natasha.

Is God always right?–1

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

You ever wonder if God always does the right thing?

It sounds nuts, doesn’t it?

But it’s actually something most people have wondered. You probably have.

It comes up a lot in Christian movies, but surprisingly, super hero stories of all things are also dealing with that problem.

That infamously awful Dawn of Justice movie is one example. Lex says “If God is all powerful, he cannot be all good.”

Well, my thought with that is that Lex Luthor is insane. He always was, the movie version is just more cartoony than the…cartoon version…hmm. Weird.

(Can anyone tell me what Lex is short for?)

Anyway, I actually have a good reason for thinking Lex is off his wagon (other than the obvious ones.)

My case is that it is because God is all powerful that he can be all good.

I know that in the movie, Superman is meant to be the god in question. But though superman has a lot of powers, he has no powers that would make him a god. Other than his ability to see everywhere.

Superman has no better understanding of humanity than anyone else; he has no ability to see into people’s souls; and nowadays he’s not even angelically good.

I know that Marvel is kind of redefining what godly qualities look like. But they used to mean goodness, wisdom, and yes, power.

If God is good, he must be all powerful.

But why does it seem like God does things that are bad?

I’ve heard it brought up that God in the Old Testament is bloodthirsty; cruel; judgmental.

I understand this to an extent. God tells us not to murder, yet He strikes people down.

And people actually make fun of this now, mocking the idea that someone could be struck by lightning from heaven. Though that’s hardly funny when you think about it.

I really don’t think God works that way most of the time, but as often as I’ve heard pastors downplay it, I have to admit, if you believe God is all powerful, you have to acknowledge he could do things like that. And that He does. Sometimes.

I don’t believe that God never judges people. that;s His job and his alone.

But what about those stories in the Bible where whole nations are supposed to be wiped out?

Well, human pity tends to say that’s terrible. And the Israelites themselves didn’t follow those instructions. I feel like in our modern world they would be applauded for thinking for themselves.

But what happened because of that was that the Israelites were corrupted. here’s some fun facts about the nations they were told to destroy. They did human sacrifice. Including Children. They also has sex as a means of some weird worship ritual. They were terrible cultures. They led the Israelites to do those things to.

The Israelites. like all people struggling to be different, often were swayed by the folks around hem. Just as we are by peer pressure. They wanted a king because it was the cool thing. They wanted to build altars to the popular gods.

And if you think that’s changed over the centuries, then you need to take a closer look. It’s the same now.

But in that time, pretty much the only way to deal with that sin was to eradicate the sinners. It wasn’t pretty, but it was the only thing to do.

God wanted a holy people. he wanted them to understand that the wages of sin is indeed death. If they would be his, they could not belong to the world around them.

It may sound insane to justify mass murder on those grounds…and in some ways, it is.

After all, I would say terrorists are insane.

There are a few differences though.

First of all, I think we can all agree what the other nations were doing was terrible and inhuman.

It’s different to give the death sentence to murderers then it is to a nation of lesser sins.

There’s a lot of theological reasons about why everyone in these nations needed to be killed. At the very least, it was war.

Beyond that, all I can really say is that you have to believe.

But I don’t think that’s enough.

It’s not hard to think that if the God of the Bible is the one true God, then it is his right to decide who lives and dies.

It’s more problematic when you think how many other religions claim that.

And even more so if you think that no matter if it’s true or not, it seems terrible.

But God is ever merciful.

We deserve nothing form him. That he chooses to spare one nation and destroy another is all in His own plan, and who are we to question it.

But even so, he does not despise our questions.

He does remind us that He is god, and we are man. We can’t understand.

And if there’s one thing I’ve observed about humanity it’s that our pity for each other is not consistent.

We get all bent out of shape over God’s judgement. But we make death threats on the internet to people who’ve never done us any personal wrong just because we don’t like them. We murder each other over stupid things like money. We use each other. We lie We cheat. We steal.

We who abuse children; and have holocausts; and start arguments just to pick a fight.

Should we really talk?

I just have a feeling those who would condemn God need to take a good look at themselves.

God at least has reasons for what He does.

But if that’s not enough (and it never is) I also want to point out that God, by position, has the right to do things we don’t do.

I realize I haven’t made perhaps the strongest argument with this post, but it’s a good starting point to dive deeper into this. So until next time–Natasha.

Racial Stereotypes and Movies.

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

You know what I notice when I watch internet reviews? Most of the ones out there are by more…liberal minded youths.

Youths being subjective, some of them are in their thirties.

But they more to the left, if you know what I mean.

I still enjoy their reviews and get something from them, but on certain issues, they always end up disappointing me by taking the opposite stance from what I would.

A common example would be racism in films (by the way it’s a lot easier to see racism in films than in books.)

A lot of the time it’s just pointed out to make a sarcastic joke, and the observation is not based on substantial evidence that the movie was being racist.

Like in old Disney movies.

Maybe, and I say it with reluctance, Walt Disney did have some racist leanings. A lot of people did in the forties and fifties, even those who wouldn’t have identified themselves as for segregation.

But I might point out his movies were probably one of the first, if not the first, to feature ethnic characters in a kid’s film.

Also, I question whether all stereotyping is harmful.

To a kid, the stereotyping is a lot less about color or speech and a lot more about how the character acts. They won’t recognize singing a certain way as a stereotype. They’ll be paying more attention to whether the character is being good or bad.

And that’s why black is associated with evil and white is associated with good.

Before you get all offended (if you’re the type who does.) Let me further explain.

The black vs white thing has nothing to do with race, as much as certain groups of people would like you to believe it does. It’s all about the contrast between darkness and light.

This goes way back to the Bible itself, along with plenty of mythologies around the world. Darkness, night, underground, etc, is always representative of evil.

Which is not a coincidence or a chance but a deep truth. In darkness you are blind and you lose your way. That’s how you become evil. In a nutshell.

But light, daytime, open air, they all represent truth and goodness.

And we all know the connection there. Freedom and seeing things clearly leads to happiness and goodness.

Plus most people are afraid of the dark as children and prefer the daylight hours.

That villains are traditionally clothed in black or other dark colors is not a racist thing, nor are references to things looking blacker than before. Context, people, context.

Black characters are not often cast as villains anyway.

Which is also called racist, but I think the white people ought to be more offended over this.

why are we always portrayed as evil maniacs who lie, kill, steal, as if it were nothing?

And if this doesn’t bother you, but black characters not being villains does, you have a problem.

Because that’s basically saying white people can be evil and it’s normal, but black people can be evil and it’s special. It makes them important.

How messed up is that idea on so many levels?

Furthermore, if old movies portrayed black and Asian characters as goofy, quirky, and stereotypical, were they any better to white characters?

Couldn’t the whole tea party thing from Alice in Wonderland be called an English stereotype? Could the white rabbit who’s always in a hurry and kind of a milksop be a stereotype?

Actually all the characters int eh movie are white and very quirky.

But if that’s not the best example, what aobut the princess movies?

The only non white princesses are also ones portrayed as more proactive and hardworking and anti damsel in distress. (Pocahontas, Tiana, and Jasmine.) You can argue all day about how their ethnicity as a whole is portrayed, but aren’t they less helpless and docile than Cinderella and Snow White and Aurora; all European.

And aren’t all the white princesses up till Merida stereotypically man–oriented without any power of their own?

Merida and Elsa are still the only real exceptions to this so far.

Am I saying we should come down on Disney for all this? NO.

I don’t care.

I really don’t need movie characters to tell me what my gender should do or be. I don’t see little boys walking around being princely. (Too bad.) If I like identifying with princesses, it’s because something in the idea of it itself appeals to me. Not because i think that’s the embodiment of what a woman should be.

I would find that thought ridiculous.

And I don’t ask movies to define femininity for me. Wonder Woman is just as feminine to me as Cinderella. Because woman are different, and what we share is hard to capture in one film.

Saying that Cinderella or Wonder Woman are the peak of womanliness is as silly as trying to pick between a t\super smart guy or the tough wrestler guy as the epitome of manliness.

Doesn’t a man need both brains and brawn? Don’t most men fall between those two extremes. Or in some cases, are both. (Hi Batman….and most Superhero men.)

And don’t most women have both a tough and bold side, and a demure and beauty loving side.

For me those two sides are inseparable. I can be bold and appreciate the finer things in life simultaneously.

And any movie that says those are mutually exclusive is idiotic.

Just like any movie that thinks it can accurate portray an entire ethnicity is idiotic.

Here’s the rub.

People are all different. A movie portraying an ethnicity can only portray the most well known parts of it, or the worst parts, or the funniest parts, to get so many people to follow along.

It’s not a movie’s place to define a race. Only to use race as a storytelling tool.

It can’t tell you what you are, and how you live. It’s not able to do that. And no one should ask it too.

That’s not to excuse any film that’s using stereotypes just to put people down and dump on one culture or another. Those films are garbage.

But most films are just trying to tell the story using what the majority is familiar with. And that’s true whether it’s an american film portraying English stereotypes, or a Bollywood film portraying American stereotypes. (It happens.)

Whatever. Can I just focus on the actual message?

Those are my thoughts anyway, until next time–Natasha.

Of Christmas Classics and Childhood Innocence.

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

Who doesn’t love old Christmas Classics?

Even though I realize now that there’s a lot of things in those movies that are not explained very well, I don’t think they have to be for the movie to be good.

Actually, I think they make it better.

If you’ve ever seen Frosty Returns, you might recall that Frosty tells one kid that “Some things just can’t be explained.”

And it’s true. I mean, can anyone really explain gravity? Can anyone decide what light is?

 

I don’t know about anyone else, but when I watch Frosty the Snowman now, the nostalgia makes me want to cry.

Because I’m sad for what we have lost.

I love the innocence of these old films. They have songs in them that would never make the cut now. Like the “If you sit on my lap today” Song from Santa Claus is coming to town.

That song is innocent. Whatever might be read into it now.

I am not saying by the way, that we should write songs like that for our modern movies. The problem with losing innocence is that once it’s gone, it’s gone.

You can never un-see or un-know what you know.

It’s impossible for me to forget the threats of terrorism, and drug abuse, and sex trafficking.

And that’s why I would like to encourage any parents our would be parents reading it that innocence is actually a very wise thing to preserve in your child.

It’s going out of fashion now.  The general attitude is that children will have to face reality sooner or later, and hiding it from them is stupid.

And parents who choose to shelter their kids rarely explain why in terms that make sense to those who hold the above view of it.

When parents say they don’t allow their kids to watch or listen to certain things, they usually justify it by saying those things are inappropriate.

But what does that mean? And in the day of gender confusion and school shootings, does that idea have any merit?

I think so.

The way my parents handled the issue was never voluntarily bringing up any shocking behavior. But if I asked about it, they would explain. My dad often more than I wanted to hear. My mom usually more vaguely, because she didn’t like talking about the stuff herself.

My parents used both caution, timing, and natural curiosity to handle the problem of telling my siblings and I about the crud in the world. And that’s the key.

Now that I’m almost 20, I hope I will not be in for too many more moral shocks. (please Lord.) But I am glad that most of the ones I had came when I was over the age of 10.

I am glad I can remember a time when I did not know those things. And that I did not grow up hearing about them all the time. Or that if I did hear, I did not understand, so I cannot remember.

I am glad that I had many years of relative carefreeness.

Why? Because I had no suspicions. I still remember when I could watch a movie and not get the sexual innuendos. Wasn’t’ that great?

I mentioned in my Wonder Woman review that I had the experience later of being horrified to learn about how corrupt people can be. That’s not a fun experience, but I would urge anyone with children not to avoid it by letting their children in on everything without setting boundaries.

Obviously, adults don’t talk directly to children about this stuff (usually) but they let them watch or read things without screening them first. And it adds up.

I am glad to be horrified over sin. It does not make you weak. It is actually a good thing to be sickened by it. To a certain extent. It’s a godly quality. The Lord himself is horrified by sin.

Did you know that there are some sins God does not even imagine us doing? It’s true. It says in Jeremiah 19:5, 7:31, and 32:35 that the sin Israel was committing had not even entered his mind.

God then, is innocent.

You may ask how that’s even possible. And the reason I can think of ties back in to shielding children from corruption.

A pure mind cannot ever conceive the depths a corrupt, sick mind will stoop too. A good man cannot even imagine doing what an evil man does.

The best protection from corruption is to not know about it. Innocence in childhood can be a great foundation fro a strong moral character. Because a child is not ready to process e evil and sort it out from good. That’s why it is the parent’s job to feed them on good things.

I want to make it clear I do not mean parents should pretend evil isn’t real. Children will figure that out no matter how much you try to hie it. What I mean is, trying to give them the best you can and make sure what’s influencing their thinking is a pure as possible. Evil is always evil, and it’s always defeated.

(I recommend A Thomas Jefferson Education for more on how to ease children into knowing evils sometimes wins and preparing them for that harsh reality through their books and movies.)

We are told nowadays that children only grow up with concepts of good and evil because we teach them too. And we are advised to throw away responsibility and treat them like case experiments. Exposing them to all things and letting them decide.

but no matter how hard you pretend it’s otherwise, children will decide based on you. Whether they reject your morality, or imitate it. You will be their guideline. You are teaching them one way, whether you like it or not.

So, why not teach them good, noble things, while it’s up to you. Before friends and school have a stronger grip on them. (Though find the best school you can by all means. And encourage healthy friendships.)

I want innocence for my children because it’s the last part of life that remains a little linked to how things were mean to be. And a child who has that experience will be able to imagine better things more easily than one who only ever saw the darkness in the world.

Irreverence.

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

I watch a lot of YouTube, and a lot of movies. This often gives you a look into the worst of humanity (the part of it that’s online.)

Like Furrys, I mean, there’s nothing wrong with liking anthropomorphic animals, but do you know the sick connotations that term has?

I hope not for your sake. But I’ve picked it up streaming through videos.

Anyway, you know what I notice, there’s a growing problem that’s being almost ignored by he folks who comment on this stiff. (Like I am now, I guess.)

Maybe this is familiar to you, some one who thinks they are super funny is going on aobut something, and they throw in some remark against God. (It can even be a non christian God.)

I don’t know about Buddhists, Muslims, or Jews, but this really bugs me when it happens.

The insolent tone these folks use is kind of disturbing.

I won’t defend other gods, but I don’t really think they are something to joke aobut when someone truly believes in them.

Take an example from a movie I recently watched (it wasn’t good, by the way) the main character calls God a racist b—, with no real grounds for it that I could see, and other people in the movie think this is great. And funny. She’s applauded for her…moxie, I guess.

You know what’s celebrated in our culture? Irreverence.

We laugh at it, even applaud. Those who are out of control and insolent to everybody are praised as fearless and independent.

I wish I could say it was just unbelievers. but I’ve seen it among Christians too.

Some of you 40+ readers will remember when it was bad to use the phrase “Oh my God.” or any other cockamamie phrase that threw around God’s name.

Now I hear that all the time in church.

It’s hilarious. kid shows even nowadays will not use that phrase, or words like “heck” or “darn” because it would bother parents, but I hear it in church. Even in Sunday school.

I use darn and heck myself. Because to me, they mean nothing, or nothing important. You darn a sock. Heck isn’t even a real word exactly.

But throwing God’s name around implies that you feel the same way about that word that I do about these two words. That it means nothing to you.

And I’m convinced that for many people, it doesn’t. The idea that God would even take offense to that, if they believe in him at all, never crosses their mind.

It may seem like I’m being judgmental to mind this. But I’m really not. It’s a serious problem, your language reflects your attitude.

Now people will swear up and down that that’s not the case. We all deny stuff. It’s not a spectacular example of human failings. That’s why we shouldn’t buy it. People deny plenty of things that are harmful to themselves and others.

It’s like my cousins who use exclamations like that because their parents do, and they never stop to think what they are actually saying. And their parents learned it from their parents. And so on.

Irreverence is a huge problem because it signals a lack of ability to take anything seriously when it comes to the Spiritual side of life.

The Spiritual may not actually be ridiculous, but as C. S. Lewis pointed out, treating it like it has already been found ridiculous is both lazier than trying, and creates a general attitude of flippancy that ruins morality.

I think it is also possible to take things too seriously, but at this point, the only thing we’re in danger of taking too seriously is ourselves.

So the challenge is, do we need to look at how we talk aobut things and start watching ourselves more closely.

I’m pretty sure I do.

Those are my thoughts for now, until next time–Natasha.